Install a Git-backed skill source into AgentDock state, storing instructions for later use without executing them.
Install a Git-backed skill source into AgentDock state. This stores instructions only; it does not execute a skill or run an LLM.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| replace | No | ||
| repo_url | Yes | ||
| source_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does useful behavioral work by clarifying that installation is a storage-only operation with no execution side effect. It does not, however, disclose what happens if source_id already exists, how 'replace' affects existing state, or any permission requirements. The key safety trait is present, but the mutation semantics are incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, with the core action in the first sentence and the critical non-execution caveat in the second. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (four scalar parameters, no output schema), and the core purpose is clear. However, the absence of parameter descriptions, annotations, and output schema leaves gaps around 'source_id' and 'replace'. A careful agent would not know how to choose values for those fields or what to expect back.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the four parameters by name. 'repo_url' can be loosely inferred from 'Git-backed,' but 'source_id', 'ref', and 'replace' remain undefined, and 'replace' has important behavioral implications. The description does not compensate for the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('Install'), a specific resource ('a Git-backed skill source'), and a destination ('AgentDock state'). It also preempts confusion with execution tools by explicitly stating it stores instructions only and does not execute a skill or run an LLM. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like skill.list, skill.update, and process.start.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when a Git-backed skill source needs to be added to AgentDock state, and it rules out execution use cases. However, it never names alternatives such as skill.update or process.start, nor does it state when to prefer one. This is useful but implied rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.